About your Search

20121202
20121210
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)
with the prop 8 case. the doma case is slightly different for reasons we can go into. but many of us thought the prop 8 case it's going to go back. it's going to be legal in california but nowhere else and the court is going to wait another ten years. then wash out the outliers like intraracial marriage did. >> so what are the implications -- the differing implications of how they could rule? what different parts of the gay marriage question could they resolve? >> the doma case is a much more easy case. it's a much more challenge. all it does is to return congress to its original position of following whatever states' definition of marriage are. in some ways it was crafted, it's a movement. they tend to be pro-state's rights and the liberals are pro gay, so essentially toward the middle, these are justice kennedy's favorite things. that's clearly a fifth vote for this case. we assume. so i think everyone imagined everyone since appellate court struck down the congressional statute that invariably leads the supreme court to review the case. everyone thought they would take the case. i think t
on the issue of same-sex marriage. the high court decided to hear two cases, one, doma, the defense of marriage act, and the other, a challenge to california's proposition 8 which took away the right for gays and lesbians to legally wed in the state. now the court's expected to hear arguments in march, with a ruling by late june. and the decision to take on the issue comes just weeks after voters in three more states approved same of sex marriage. joining me now, cnn's legal analyst jeffrey toobin. how big is this? put this in perspective. >> huge. this is really a major event in american history, not just court history. same-sex marriage now is at the center of the american legal world. this was a cause that was seen as a fringe issue as recently as the '90s. >> it wasn't even mentioned as a possibility. >> it was not even mentioned. polling has gone from, you know, approximately 20% to 30% support in the '90s. now gallup poll showed 53%. exist polls showed 49%. now ark fears command close to a majority support. and now the supreme court may decide that same-sex marriage will be the law of the
or doma. the cases aren't expected to be decided until next june, the fact that they're weighing in on the debate will have a national effect. back at the table. kenji yoshino. donna edwards, bob herbert and joining us is ray kerry. the executive director of the guy and lesbian task force. i'm going to you kenji, you're always here to set my constitutional framework for me. it's going to be two cases, right? what's at issue in the two separate cases. >> i should do them in the order you presented them. the prop 8 case is about a state ban on same-sex marriage. so there are equal protection and due process challenges. what that means is, this violates the fundamental right of fairness of streeting gay and straight couples the same. you're denying us the fundamental right to marriage. there's a quality component and a rights component to it. if the supreme court goes big on that case, it could guarantee same-sex marriage as a law of the land. flipping the 41 states that currently don't have it and requiring them to have it. i don't think that's going to happen. on the other hand, i
for the time being? >> reporter: you know, that's the interesting question here. we don't know. the doma case doesn't invite the court to answer that question. it simple says if in those states that decide to grant same-sex marriage, which is up to the states, can the federal government still refuse to recognize those marriages? even if the supreme court strikes down the doma law, it won't say anything about whether a state has to allow same-sex marriage. on the prop 8 case it is possible to rule on that case very narrowly or broadly. let me explain. when the court of appeals said that prop 8 was unconstitutional, it said you can't do what california did. you can't give the right, which the california supreme court did, and then take it away, which prop 8 did. california's the only state that did that. if the supreme court barely upholds the court of appeals ruling, that would be good for california only. if the supreme court dives fully into in and gets into the basic constitutional question about whether states can block same-sex marriage, then, yes, they would get to it. they won't -- the
when they passed doma into law in 1996. i need to get your immediate reaction to the supreme court news this afternoon. >> well, i think it's very good for the advocates of marriage equality that the court took both of these issues up. the first issue is this question of the defense of marriage act. it was passed really in the middle of the night in 1996 and signed very reluctant lie by president clinton and e sin essentially says one state does not have to recognize the marriage equality rights another state may give. if you are married legally in the state of massachusetts and you happen to reside -- this is as a gay couple -- and you happen to reside in the state of california, the state of california does not need to recognize your massachusetts marriage, and as a result there are over 1,000 benefits that can be denied to a legally married gay couple if they happen to be living in a state that doesn't recognize gay marriage. my guess is the supreme court will declare that unconstitutional because there is a long tradition under the privileges and immunities clause of the constitutio
, one regarding the defense of marriage act, or doma, involving couples legally married in their own state. the other is a challenge to california's prop 8, which took away the rates of same-sex marriage that had been previously approved by state courts. >>> the top story this hour, a man considered the leader of a terrorist network, now in custody in egypt. this is why we're paying attention to this man. u.s. officials believe his group had something to do with the attack in libya that killed the american ambassador and three other u.s. citizens. our national correspondent, susan candiotti is live for us. you have been working your sources. what do we know about this terror suspect and the group he leads? >> well, let's talk about him. the investigators have had this man on the radar for some time. and now he is being called a possible suspect in the benghazi attacks. muhammad ahmad was arrested, in custody while the investigation goes on. u.s. authorities believe he been involved in the september terror hit that killed ambassador chris stevens and three other americans, according t
Search Results 0 to 6 of about 7 (some duplicates have been removed)

Terms of Use (10 Mar 2001)